Nigeria Matters

One Nigeria: To Be Or Not To Be? (5)

EUREKA! AFRICA!

Those who are well acquainted with European history are well aware of the fact that the whole of Europe was formerly battle grounds. Europeans were always waging wars against one another for territories. But one very important event practically brought an end to the numerous wars among Europeans. What was that event? The discovery of AFRICA! With the discovery of Africa, the Europeans realised that there was just no point in killing themselves any more for their poor little piece of lands. They realised that Africa, extremely rich in human and mineral resources, was theirs for grab! Thus, the scramble for Africa started. With the blessings of the queen of England, the Archbishops of London and Canterburry respectively, fleets of ships sailed for Africa. Poor Africans were chained and shipped to America to work in plantations as slaves for free. As we are well aware, 3 things are needed for production: Capital (resources), land (resources) and labour (resources). All these 3 are equally important factors of production. Production, without any one of the three, is just impossible. They complement one another. At that time most productions were labour intensive. In the capacity of slaves, Africans were ‘forced’ to give out their resources, which in this case, was their labour for free. The only compensation hundreds of millions of African slaves got for tilling and mowing the land from dawn till late in the night was food, which was cultivated by them too. Nothing more.

Free labour of African slaves were not limited to the plantations and the Americas alone. They were also used in Europe and the present territory occupied by the United states to implement different very complex and labour intensive infrastructure projects. Needless, to say that slavery or free labour of African slaves contributed immensely to the industrial revolution in Europe in the 18th century and rapid economic development of the United States. With the free labour of millions of African slaves, Europe was able to save enourmous amount of money or capital which were invested into research and development and other sectors of their economies. Lloyd’s of London, one of the biggest insurance companies in the world today, made fortunes from insuring the ships that were bringing slaves and goods from Africa to Europe and the Americas. The agricultural products produced on plantations through the free labour of African slaves were traded, and the profits invested into the economy.

While African slaves were busy working on the plantations, Europeans now had more than enough time to devote to thinking and development of better machines for production. The result was the industrial revolution which led to the discovery of the steam engine (1769); spinning jenny (1770); the Arkwright water frame (1771); the puddling process for making wrought iron (1784); the power loom (1785); the cotton gin (1793); interchangeable parts (1798); improved soil tillage and improved breeds (of livestocks (around 1800); the steamboat (1807); the water mill for powering factories (1813); the three-piece iron plaw (1814) e.t.c. Because of the agricultural revolution, large fluctuations in harvest diminished, and with the exception of Ireland in the 1840s, famine disappeared from western Europe. In the 1700s life expectancy at birth was approximately thirty years, rising to forty years in 1850, fifty years in 1900, and well over seventy years today.

Robert Solow, the MIT economist, won a Nobel prize for his formulation of the neoclassical theory of growth, which stressed the importance of savings and capital formation for economic development, and for empirical measures of sources of growth. If the Europeans had paid millions of African slaves that worked for them for centuries absolutely for free, it’s obvious that they would not have been able to save so much to invest in other sectors of their respective economies. If the Europeans had paid the market price for the mineral resources that they shipped away from Africa, it’s obvious that they would not have had so much money left to inject into their economy. Their development would have been slower. However, since the Europeans could not or did not want to pay the market price for the labour (resources) of Africans, but wanted them for free, they decided to enslave us, and subsequently forced us to give out our labour, which is also a resources and a factor of production, for free.

Africa’s vast mineral resources, which are not available in Europe, equally played a very important role in European industrial revolution and development. When Europeans realised how rich Africa was in mineral resources, they decided to colonise us in order to take these resources for free. European were taking African mineral resources like gold, diamond, copper, zinc and other mineral resources absolutely for free. Many European companies like Nestle, Unilever and financial institutions like the British’s Barclay’s bank made fortunes from slave trade and colonialism. It was a super profitable trade for the Europeans!

WHAT WAS THE REAL CAUSE OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR?

We are yet to be told the real cause of the first and second world wars respectively in Africa. So far, all we were told was that Adolf Hitler was a ‘blood thirsty’ fascist, who wanted to wipe out the Jews from the face of the earth. That was true undoubtedly, but only partially. It was true that Hitler hated the Jews, and many Germans were not happy with the fact that Jews controlled a substantial part of their economy. But that was not the whole truth. In actual fact, the first and second world wars were about resources, like most wars. Being a European super power, Germany was just not happy with the fact that she was left behind by Britain, France, Portugal and Spain in the race for Africa. The access that these countries had to the sea and the fact that they started their expendition to Africa much earlier gave them a substantial advantage over Germany. Despite the fact that the maps or boundaries of respective African countries were drawn in Berlin in 1884, nevertheless, Germany was completely not satisfied with just a slice of Africa that she was apportioned. The boer war (1899-1902) between the Dutch and British was for control over the vast resources of South Africa, especially diamonds. Realising that she had lost out in the scramble for Africa and her resources, Germany decided to go to war with other European countries. In addition, Germany‘s economy which was in recession due to war reparations she was forced to pay by allied forces after loosing the first world war, prompted her to decide to settle scores finally with her adversaries; including Russia which controlled almost one-seventh of the world total landmass, with the second world war. In order to finance the war, Adolf Hitler needed gold and cash which the Jews fortunately, or unfortunately, had in abundance. Since there was no other way of getting the gold and money of the Jews for free except by force, a campaign was started to rob the Jews and wipe them out. If Adolf Hitler had succeeded in his military campaign to capture Europe and Russia, the whole of Africa together with all her mineral and human resources, would had belonged to him automatically. Unfortunately, Germany lost the war, and consequently all her few remaining colonies in Africa.

It’s worth noting that Britain, compared to her fellow European robbers, emerged the richest robber. She captured Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, which combined are more than half of the world landmass. In order to capture these territories, the aboriginal inhabitants were massacred. The Spanish in turn captured the whole of South America, with the exception of Brazil, which was captured by the Portuguese. While these pogroms of aboriginal inhabitants were in full gear, there was no mention of human or civil rights that Europeans often love to talk about recently.

WAS AMERICA‘S INDEPENDENCE WAR ABOUT FREEDOM OR RESOURCES?

In history classes and text-books, Africans were told over and over, and are still being told that the American revolution war which broke out in 1775 and lasted till 1783 was about freedom from Britain. But that was actually far from the truth. It’s a big lie! From my personal and objective analysis of this historical event, it’s a deliberate misinterpretation and falsification of history by Americans! Why? Because, first, if we are to analyse the events that led to the declaration of American Independence on July 4, 1776 ‘strictly’ from logical, legal and moral angles, only aboriginal inhabitants or bonafide owners of a captured or colonised territory could talk of independence or freedom from their coloniser. It’s just absurd that representatives of a coloniser, who were put in charge of her colony or stolen property, could talk about freedom from her. The 8 year war was far from being war for freedom or independence, but a ‘treachery’ or ‘rebellion’ against the Queen of England by her representatives. Realising the size of the territory and resources they were put in charge by the Queen, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and their brothers in treachery, decided to revolt against Britain in order to take over the United States with her vast resources. The new and high taxes that Britain levied on her colonies was just used as an excuse to launch a military campaign.

Having taken the decision to snatch Britain‘s colonies together with their resources, Washington, Jefferson and their band were faced with one serious problem: how to persuade African slaves to fight their dirty and treacherous war against Britain for free. They needed a very strong argument to convince African slaves to take up arms voluntarily against Britain without looking back. Thus, the idea of fighting for independence was born. Jefferson told African slaves that they were fighting for their independence! The British, in order to dissuade African slaves not only from fighting on the side of the revolutionaries, but have them on her (the Brittan’s) side, told them (the slaves)too that if they supported her in winning the war against the revolters, they would be given their freedom. They equally capitulated on Washington‘s discrimination and racial attitudes towards African slaves in his army. When the war eventually started Africans found themselves on both sides; some believed the revolutionaries, others believed the Queen. Poor blacks were in the forefronts of the very bloody war, and were killing themselves because of the British, on both sides, who started a war to defend their selfish economic and political interests. They naively believed that at the end of the war, they would be free. But when the revolutionaries eventually defeated the British troops, Jefferson and Washington reneged on their promise to set free African slaves who fought bravely for them! As a matter of fact, it’s worth mentioning that the first matyr of the American revolution, which started with the Boston massacre on March 5, 1770, was a black man by name Crispus Attucks. Neither Jefferson nor Washington even set free their African slaves after the war was over. They still needed their free labour to buid America. Blacks would still remain slaves – and give out their labour for free long after the so called independence war was fought! Not until the late 60s and early 70s of the 20th century did the offsprings of African slaves, originally shipped in chains to America were given ‘relative’ equal rights with the offsprings of the slave owners.

Perhaps, the knowledge of this historical fact prompted Muhammad Ali, the legendary Afro-American boxer, to refuse taking part in the Vietnam war. Ali strongly believed that since Vietnam never had never done anything to harm Afro-Americans, therefore they (black Americans) had no business fighting for America against Vietnam. He believed that the oppressors and suppressors of Afro-Americans were not the Vietnamese but the American government. He believed that if there was anybody or country that Afro-Americans had to go to war with, then, it should be America, the coloniser, that enslaved blacks and forced them to work for free, and not Vietnam.

America, thanks to the free labour of millions of African slaves that she enjoyed for centuries, was able to become the richest country in the world, overtaking Britain, within a relatively very short period. Slaves were used to build dams, roads, bridges, tunnels, rail lines, monuments, factories, e.t.c. Many American banks and companies, still in existence today, made fortunes from slave trade.

For decades, all efforts by African governments to get the United States, Britain, France, Holland, Spain and Portugal to tender their apology and compensate her for slavery have been frustrated. At the Durban World Conference Against Racism held in Durban, South Africa in 2001, the United states, Britain and many other European countries that engaged in slavery refused to send high level delegates to the African summit. Ironically, the US Secretary of state at that time was Collin Powell, an Afro-American, and a war veteran. At the South African summit, the US delegates limited themselves to saying that the United States ‘regretted’ slavery and the fact that she used the free labour of millions of African slaves for centuries to build her economy. The word ‘sorry’ or ‘apology,’ was obviously and conspicuously missing from the succinct press release of the US delegates. The US, Britain and other countries understood that if they tendered their apology for slavery, that would tantamount automatically to admitting to slavery, and unavoidable compensation which would definitely run into trillions of dollars. Moshood Kasimawo Abiola, of blessed memory, played a very active role in the reparation campaign.

Why did the US attack Iraq? Because she wanted to get Iraq‘s oil for free. The US was in desperate need of more energy due to the expansion of her economy. Unfortunately for the US, China and India stood in her way; they too needed a lot of oil to power their fast growing economies. This situation created a very high and unprecedented demand for oil. Going by the law of demand and supply, in a situation whereby there is a very high demand for a product but the supply is relatively constant, price equilibrium is bound to shift to the right significantly, i.e. increase drastically. But the US was not ready to play by the market rules of demand and supply. She did not want to pay the new market price for oil. She wanted free resources. Thus, a decision to rob Iraq of her oil was taken within Bush’s close circles. A military campaign to achieve this mission was set in motion. But since this is the 21st century, and not the 15th century, when a country could just decide at will to attack another country, the United State needed a good excuse to attack Iraq and consequently steal her oil. A massive propaganda to convince Americans and the rest of the world that Saddam Hussein was in possession of nuclear arms. The United States turned deaf ears to all evidence and arguments by independent experts and the International Atomic Energy which repeated over and over that it did not have evidence to prove that Hussein had any arms of mass destruction. The United States eventually launched a military attack on Iraq.

The purpose of this analysis is to explain explicitly the following:

1. To remind us that under normal circumstances, resources are never free and have their opportunity costs;

2. Resources can only be free without any opportunity cost only in legalised robbery, which could be in form of slavery or colonialism;

3. The One Nigeria project is nothing but a legalised robbery of the south by the north;

4. The south, in actual fact, is a colony of the north!

More explanation is needed to explain points 3 and 4.

Post Comment